Amen, brother!

Also, as far as the Pres. vetoing the "socialized health care bill" he did right. Why would a family making $80K a year need gov. help?

Stupid libs, health care is for poor kids.

Waterboarding looks to me to be the right way to treat Jihadis. I simply can't imagine any sane person objecting to the waterboarding of terrorists or their sponsors. But I guess some Angry Leftists will object to it.

Best lines from the article on waterboarding:

Comey: No lawyer will support this memo.

Addington (Cheney's counsel): I'm a lawyer and I support this.

Comey: No good lawyer.

seriously, the Falcons can't take that money back...poor Michael Vick needs that money to pay Jonathan Lee Riches © when he loses the lawsuit!

9:19: you don't seriously think that a family making $80k/year needs no help, do you? That may be true in Topeka or wherever you live, but in larger cities, $80k is barely enough for a family of 4 to live semi-comfortably. Health insurance is going to be one of the last things such a family will buy, especially if they don't have the benefit of an employer-subsidized group plan.

9:36 - maybe they shouldn't have had the kids then.

Hmm, 72% of the public supports the SCHIP expansion. 61% of Republican voters support it. Yet all the comments here are against it. Interesting self selection.

Personally, I hope the GOP leadership agrees with the posters. It's always a good idea to oppose popular programs designed to benefit children. That's just politics 101...

To 9:20am.

I don't get it. Why wouldn't a "good lawyer" support waterboarding as a method of extracting information from a terrorist; information that might lead to the discovery of a planned mass-murder attack and the saving of thousands of lives?

I will be happy when we waterboard everyone we accuse of being a criminal. What else might they know?

9:51 -- you mean besides the fact that the majority of intelligence experts will tell you that torture doesn't produce reliable, actionable results?

Why not just drill their kneecaps or plain old beat the shit out of them or sodomize them or their children until they cough up what they know? Oh, that's right, we are the U.S. and the descendents of the people that came up with the bill of rights and the magna carta.

Harvard, Yale and the S.Crt. must be so proud of these guys. Glad that biglaw corporate training is working protecting liberty and the American way.

Right, 9:54. Most people in the military will also tell you that they welcome women and gays. Just because they say the popular thing doesn't mean they really believe it.

The same ones saying it doesn't work are doing it. Hmm, I wonder why? Sadists or people smart enough to throw you off their tracks?

"I will be happy when we waterboard everyone we accuse of being a criminal. What else might they know?"
best line ever

9:20,

I have no problem with the waterboarding per se, I just object to its use because its counterproductive.

The historical record is pretty clear, the way to beat back nihilistic terrorist movements is to keep your composure and maintain your civilization while prosecuting a rigorous campaign against the terrorists. Engaging in extra-legal torture hurts our image and is therefore counter productive. Moreover, the evidence is also clear that torture doesn't provide useful, accurate intelligence information.

So while I have NO sympathy for the waterboarded, I don't think we should be doing it.

10:01... you're saying that the people who do the waterboarding say publicly that waterboarding doesn't work because that's the popular thing to say? Really?

Health insurance is going to be one of the last things such a family will buy, especially if they don't have the benefit of an employer-subsidized group plan.

=======================

After air conditioning, TVs, cable, ipods, etc.? 80k is not a king's ransom, but it's solidly middle class. If a family making that much does not want to buy health insurance, then why should I buy it for them?

10:04 - Do you really believe that the intelligence officials that have said it doesn't produce credible results aren't also condoning if not ordering it? Here's another interesting bit of trivia, the word gullible isn't found in any dictionary.

10:01,

I'll admit the sample is small, but the vets I know who've come back to the real world really don't have a problem with women and gays in the military - course they were mostly officers and NCOs, not rank & file. And note that not all who say it doesn't work do it - including our allies in NATO and Israel. W doesn't have to be a sadist to believe torture works because its a widely held misconception and because those in power routinely used torture in the past. Doesn't mean it works, just that people thought it would/did.

(9:36) Show me a family that makes $80K a year that doesn't have health insurance at work. Or, they could move to Topeka. When are people going to realize that THEY are responsible for themselves, not the government? I have an idea, let's just take our Biglaw salaries and cut them in half. Give the other half to these people and then we can all live happily ever after...Didn't think so.

Colleagues, let's put aside the morality and expediency of water-boarding for the moment and address this question: what makes water-boarding illegal?

10:07 - If the people who are saying publicly that it doesn't work are also the policy-makers behind it, then they are some pretty crappy public officials. Even GWB (or Clinton, if you prefer) would try to argue in favor of his bad policy.

If they are implementing an order to waterboard from above and are also saying it doesn't work, what does that tell you?

I think your stance makes almost no sense at all. And your reference to gullibility just confirms that you are confused.

"what makes water-boarding illegal?"

The law, inlcuding the Geneva Convention and some recent amendments to federal law that McCain helped sponsor.

A few years ago when I got out of the military Gay's were NOT welcome. Women were fine, for non-combat situations. Then again, the military isn't what it used to be. Also, some torture techniques do work, those experts must be in academia, and working from theory.

Water boarding is illegal because it is torture which is illegal under several U.S. laws as well as various executive orders and military regulations.

A more interesting question is whether it is illegal or not should the leader of the free world be ordering it? The moron we have in there now is an embarrassment to every person who went to school beyond eight grade and is pretty much the intellectual equivilant of the other morons who take the koran as law. And the lawyers who are backing him up are even worse.

The facts that people in the military may or may not like working with gays and women and whether torture may or may not be effective is really irrelevant, isn't it?

Where did all the humanitarians on this thread come from? Is John Yoo doing a live blogging class? I wonder, do you waterboard your kids when they lie to you, because they do, all the time.

The guy that delivers my heating oil really does not believe in environmental laws and he thinks that they are silly and overbearing.

Therefore environmental laws must be silly and overbearing.

If I were a terrorist leader, I would give a simple instruction:

If you're waterboarded or otherwise tortured, lie.

Tell them immediately that there is a ticking bomb or a secret meeting. Make up a location. If they start torturing you again, lie again immediately with a totally different lie. And again, and again. As many times as it takes.

Lie so often that if they do eventually break you down either they won't believe you or they will have spent lots and lots of resources in the meantime.

I'm not seeing a reason why this wouldn't make torture completely useless. Do y'all?

(10:24) No, not the kids but I do it to unruly 1st years that don't know when to shut up. Oh, and sissy Libs that have no backbone, which is pretty much any liberal.

I got waterboarded all the time as a 1st year. It builds character.

10:31: Rather than have the backbone to do what needs to be done to the top 2 or 3 terrorist guys on some island in the Indian ocean where no one where ever hear about it, the spineless neocons attempt to justify their behavior by issuing memos that these things are not torture.

Rather than try the terrorists and sentence them to be shot at dawn after a trial, the spineless neocons attempt to argue that people can legally held indefintely without a trial.

10:31 - The all-backbone, no understanding approach has failed. Why, for a change, don't we try to develop a more nuanced understanding of the issue before we deploy our backbone?

10:17, please don't be condescending, I'm asking a serious question; 10:22, you're more helpful, but you still haven’t addressed what legislation or court decision specifically makes the practice of water-boarding illegal. You both cite examples that ban torture, not water-boarding per se. Is their a federal court decision that states that the practice is indeed torture? I’m not being facetious; I’m genuinely interested and don’t have much knowledge of recent legislative and judicial developments in this area.

10:14 - there is nothing. That's why they refuse to give you an answer. It's really their personal opinion at this point, which is fine. But until a court, or legislative body, bans the pratice, its not "torture."

10:14: I do not have the time to research the exact definition of torture, although I am sure it is out there. But I find it hard to beleive you really want the latest legal and judicial developments which state that water boarding, see diagram in post, is torture?

What kind of neocon crap is that which argues the legislative or judicial developments in this area? Give me a break, just have some sack and admit that you think that doing anything to a terrorist should be allowed.

I think he vetoed the kids because he wants to make the republicans running for office right now look good by comparison.

9:54 says, "...you mean besides the fact that the majority of intelligence experts will tell you that torture doesn't produce reliable, actionable results? "

Hmmm....

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Good argument 1102. No need to have a court or legislature settle the issue. This is great news for pro-lifers. They think abortion is murder. Hooray! No more abortions now.

Try getting a law degree, and if you have one already, please stop raping your clients with your lack of skill.

11:09: try graduating high school before you insult me. Being a lawyer is about applying facts to law and being able to give an opinion. Do you think that any reasonable lawyer or judge would find this not to be torture? Sadly there are lawyers in the justice department who think it is not, but they are wrong and delusional.

Torture is defined in 18 USC 2340. If it causes fear of imminent death it is torture.

11:06 -- I would recommend Ron Suskind’s “The One Percent Doctrine.” It includes an interesting discussion of why techniques like waterboarding, although sure to produce a “confession,” don’t produce RELIABLE information. Ultimately, whether someon talks isn't important if the information isn't actionable. But perhaps you don't care if it's reliable?

11:18 - another stellar argument, "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot." Well, we're still doing it . . . and the Circuits and Supremes have not banned it. I'm sure you're much smarter then them. I'm sure you're smarter and more reasonable then every person who is for waterboarding. You and your ilk are the smartest people no one has ever heard of.

All I'm saying is that a lot has changed since you were a judge and a congressman, oh wait . . .

Yes, I am more reasonable (and more intellectually honest) than the persons who torture the law to state that waterboarding is not torture.

Is your argument that unless the Circuits and S.Crt. expressly interpert something as violating the law it is not illegal?

Or is your argument that if someone does not agree with you or the president then he or she is not as smart as the president?

I have an idea, let's just take our Biglaw salaries and cut them in half. Give the other half to these people and then we can all live happily ever after...Didn't think so.

Posted by: 9:19 | October 4, 2007 10:13 AM

That sounds like the status quo, half our salaries are being taken away and given to other people.

11:35, ignoring your confusion between "than" and "then", 11:18 did provide a definition for torture.

If a practice is torture then it is illegal.

If a practice causes fear of imminent death, then it is torture.

Waterboarding is a practice that causes a terrifying fear of drowning.

Drowning causes imminent death.

Therefore, waterboarding is torture and illegal.

But let's wait until the Supreme Court actually decides! Without a Supreme Court ruling, nothing is illegal!

WHAT ABOUT THE PENUMBRAS, DAMNIT!

You got me! I guess the death penalty is torture also. The practice of sentencing someone to death causes a fear of imminent death. What about the Iraq war? The invasion certainly caused a fear of imminent death to the Iraqis. That must be torture as well. What if a doctor tells a patient that he is about to die? Is he also guilty of torture?

Doesn't it also have to be a rational fear?

Try learning how to read things with some background and context.

According to you we can't speak to captured terrorists. God forbid we make them afraid that we may hurt them.

Your reading also allows some really nasty forms of torture that will not cause fear of imminent death. Who believes that a hot iron on the genitals will cause you to die. Oh, you may wish you were dead . . .but come on. So is it fair to say that you would be OK with that?

12:36 et al,

Torture doesn't have to cause fear of imminent death. I believe the earlier poster was merely explaining that because water boarding caused fear of imminent death, it was torture.

---------------------
§ 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2340 et seq.]--
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from--
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) "United States" means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

I guess you have us 12:36. How can anyone possibly compete with your devastingly insightful and well reasoned post. I now see your point and am completely converted to your side.

12:36 I want to thank you because with that brilliant comment I am finally freed from the need to ever read any comment on this board ever again.

12:36 - You depress me.

"administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality"

Does this mean that liberals have already been subjected to torture?

And, in anticipation of your typical responses . . ."W being president is torture." "The government is evil." "I just wet myself, why isn't there a social welfare program to help change me?"

Torture does not produce any rleiable results so we should just kill them regardless of the information we might obtain- we can get that in other ways from other sources.

the commentary and opinion coming from certain commenters reminds me, as always, of the pathetic fucktard federalist society whininess and idiocy

2:19... I'm sure I would be offended if I had any idea what you are talking about.

the commentary and opinion coming from certain commenters reminds me, as always, of the pathetic wimps known as liberals

please raise your hand if you are earning a biglaw salary and still feel victimized by wealth-distributing liberals, still feel resentment and anger at "welfare queens", and still feel a profound sense of happiness that some children lack health insurance. now, those of you who have raised your hand, please kill self.

12:54 -- It looks like that definition of torture requires there to be "prolonged mental harm" (assuming Waterboarding doesn't actually cause "severe pain", which it apparently does not). Waterboarding itself lasts only a few seconds, or apparently no more than 2 and half minutes. There's nothing said that there is mental harm extending beyond the act itself.

So... is it torture?

3:28, I'm raising my hand because I answer yes to (1), yes to (2) [or rather, the gross oversimplification of it], and won't even comment on (3). Now that I've raised my hand, I’d like to slap you with it.

Alternately, raise your hand if you're making a biglaw salary and (1) still feel that the current president was "selected, not elected", (2) believe that Al Qaeda exists only because America has caused great harm against the world, or (3) believe the government knows how to manage your own money better than you.

Some topics just bring out the best in people.

3:43, what do you expect when a bunch of lawyers, law students, etc., anonymously comment on a controversial topic on which there are compelling arguments from both sides? It's never pretty.

you're right, 3:41, (3) was intended to be somewhat facetious. however, your "test" consists of elements which are all gross caricatures of what conservatives think non-conservatives believe. you have confirmed that you really do feel victimized by wealth distribution. i think it's hilarious. the solution, of course, is that you should probably go, in turn, victimize someone who hasn't had a physical check-up in the past three years because they don't have medical insurance.

as for your (2), it takes real ignorance of history to conclude that america has played no role in al qaeda's history (though of course america played little role in its raison d'etre). i'm not sure any reasonable non-conservative would agree with that statement.

Isn't waterboarding what all the kids are doing at Sunset Beach?

Loud noises!